MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4383499522 · doi:10.3389/fmamm.2023.1208276

Eastern High Arctic–Baffin Bay beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) estuary abundance and use from space

2023· article· en· W4383499522 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cortney A. Watt, Cody G. Carlyle, Claire Hornby, Bryanna A. H. Sherbo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Mammal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersCrown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
KeywordsBeluga WhaleBelugaEstuaryBayOceanographyFisheryPopulationAbundance (ecology)ArcticEnvironmental scienceGeographyAerial surveyWhaleSatellite imageryRemote sensingGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The Eastern High Arctic–Baffin Bay (EHA-BB) beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) population spends summer in estuaries around Somerset Island, Nunavut, Canada. A single abundance estimate from 1996 suggests an abundance >21,000 beluga whales; however, more information on abundance and distribution is needed to ensure effective management of this population, especially in estuaries where previous surveys provided minimal coverage. To assess the feasibility of using Very High Resolution (VHR) satellite imagery to obtain estuary abundance estimates for this beluga population, we evaluated a citizen science crowd counting initiative that was designed to monitor remote beluga whale populations and their estuary use. Methods In July and August 2020 the WorldView 2 and 3, and GeoEye 1 satellites were tasked to collect VHR imagery (30–41 cm) of estuaries previously known to be used by Eastern High Arctic–Baffin Bay beluga whales. The objectives were to obtain an estuary abundance estimate for this population from satellite imagery, and to evaluate the effectiveness of having imagery annotated using a crowd-source platform. Almost 3,800 km2of ocean imagery was analyzed using Maxar’s Geospatial Human Imagery Verification Effort (GeoHIVE) Crowdsourcing platform. Expert readers then manually compared counts to those performed by crowd-counters to determine variance in observer counts. Results and Discussion The estuary abundance estimate from 11 core estuaries was 12,128 (CV 36.76%, 95% confidence interval 6,036–24,368) beluga whales. This represents an estuary abundance estimate only, as the greater Peel Sound and Prince Regent Inlet areas were not photographed. The estuaries with the largest abundance of beluga whales were Creswell Bay, Maxwell Bay, and Prince Whales Island, with over 2,000 crowd-counted whales in each estuary. Although VHR imagery has potential to assist with surveying and monitoring marine mammals, for larger estuaries it was not always possible to photograph the entire area in a single day, and cloud cover was an issue for sections of most images. This work will assist with planning large-scale aerial surveys for monitoring beluga whale populations, identifying high-use areas and important beluga habitat, and highlights the utility of using VHR imagery to enhance our understanding of estuary abundance and distribution of Arctic whales.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Mammal Science→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→